Scientists at the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have theorized that theNewtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.

This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the Universe is “timeless.”

In two recent papers in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar, begins by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency and speed. But, by itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.

Without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time.

Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework. The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time.

The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space -- as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs -- can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists.

An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known.

“Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable; you cannot prove it or disprove it -- you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.”

In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.

The paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.

Some recent studies have challenged the theory that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model) and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.

Comments

To me this has been obvious ever since delving into understanding general cosmology and relativity. From special relativity and its relation of slower/faster speed and faster/slower time it's simple to understand that what we call time is merely motion through space. The way our atomic clocks measure time is through motion of particles.

I've generally thought of time as a legitimate dimension that merely functions in our universe differently from the three dimensions of space. Similarly, the six dimensions of string theory, and the one additional dimension of m-theory, are also dimensions that behave differently in our universe (though I'm not sure whether the m-dimension works the same as the other six).

Then again, I'm a novelist, not a physicist, so I easily could be wrong. I'll be somewhat interested in seeing how this research develops (as it does affect a couple of plot points in my novels -- both the story that's already out, and another that I'm working on).

Hello! It is I, Albert Einstein, visiting the future. Yes, I did point this out many years ago. Sorry to run, but I must accompany Barney Stinson back to the reality accelerator before the vortex closes. We must away!

'time as a measure of the numerical order of change' - Yes, true, the implication being that where there is no change, there is no time...or no illusion of time. That's also what the ancients taught. It doesn't hurt to revisit these ideas from different perspectives, though, so thanks for posting it.

Regarding the psychological framework of time, I've believe some original cultures regard the past as something more like "over there," and the future as something like "on the other side of over there."

God doesnt exist, its 2012, with all the information provided its astonishing people still believe in it. Much like how the world "was" flat 500 years ago, people will no longer belive in religion soon

This is a key philosophical debate as well. If these theorists are essentially saying that Time is a construct, I would have to agree to a large extent.

But there are layers and paradoxes in either view. The temporal ability of some sentient creatures to recall, replay and perhaps even rewind-in-reverse their own personal experiences [a process of learning and behavioural adaptation] might be contrasted, for the purposes of debate, with the technological version in which Time provides the absolute parameters.

Time is the consequence of probability waves collapsing into particles in a particular space segment.

These collapses occur in what we call the present, and produce matter (what we call the past, collapsed space-probability outcomes) and energy. What we call the future is simply un-collapsed space-probability outcomes.

Matter (what we call the past) imbued with energy as a result of the collapse of its probability field, pushes forward into what we call the future. This effect creates mass.

Gravity is the consequence of a reduction in the resistance of what we call the future (un-collapsed probability fields) as the presence of larger and closer clusters of matter (what we call the past) distort space (un-collapsed probability fields, what we call the future).

Since time is not localized, separate particles, if paired in time, can transmit information between them instantaneously.

Dark matter is thus fully collapsed space, with no longer any imbued energy or accompanying space/probability waves, and thus no collapsing waves, and thus no energy creation, and thus no pushing of un-collapsed space, and thus no light.

See: The problem with the standard model is it fails to explain both gravity and the other forces together, or to connect relativity with quantum physics.

Let us assume that space is simply an expanded un-resolved probability field. And that time is what happens when probability waves collapse into particles in a particular space segment.

In that case, entropy becomes the random collapse of probability outcomes throughout space.

These collapses occur in the present, and produce matter (the past, collapsed space-probability outcomes) and energy. The future is simply un-collapsed space-probability outcomes.

Matter (the past) imbued with energy as a result of the the collapse of its probability field, pushes forward into the future. This effect creates mass.

Gravity is the consequence of a reduction in the resistance of the future (un-collapsed probability fields) as the presence of larger and closer clusters of matter (the past) distort space (un-collapsed probability fields, the future).

The mass of a photon (combined mass at rest and virtual mass caused by its motion), is less than that of a quark, because a quark is composed of sub-quark collapsed space as well as un-collapsed space, whereas a photon is only un-collapsed space, imbued with energy by the collapse of nearby space/probability fields.

Since time is not localized, separate particles, if paired in time, can transmit information between them instantaneously.

Dark matter is thus fully collapsed space, with no longer any imbued energy or accompanying space/probability waves, and thus no collapsing waves, and thus no energy creation, and thus no pushing of un-collapsed space, and thus no light.

@Physicist. You don't really seem to have gotten the point of the article, which if I understand correctly, is a "write-up" on Horava-Lifshitz theory. In this model time is an "emergent phenomena" at distances beyond the quantum scale, in that, they are in general agreement with the SpaceTime concept of Einstein, but don't require time as a component to explain actions at these scales.

@Mark D: Philosophy has nothing to do with this. It's a testable model of how the universe actually works. The universe itself doesn't care about anyone's point of view or suppositions.

From : http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/

A commonsensible conjecture is that Universe Contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event, as released moving gravitons (energy) start reconverting to mass (gravity) and eventually returning to black holes, steadily leading to the re-formation of The Universe Singularity, simultaneously with the inflation and expansion, i.e. that universal expansion and contraction are going on simultaneously.

Conjectured implications are that the Universe is a product of A Single Universal Black Hole with an extremely brief singularity of ALL the gravitons of the universe, which is feasible and possible and mandated because gravitation is a very weak force due to the small size of the gravitons, the primal mass-energy particles of the universe.

This implies also that when all the mass of the presently expanding universe is consumed by the present black holes, expansion will cease and be replaced with empansion back to THE Single Universal Black Hole.

Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.
The quantum mechanics of every process is its evolution.
Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.
=================

From the Big-Bang it is a rationally commonsensical conjecture that the gravitons, the smallest base primal particles of the universe, must be both mass and energy, i.e. inert mass yet in motion even at the briefest fraction of a second of the pre Big Bang singularity. This is rationally commonsensical since otherwise the Big would not have Banged, the superposition of mass and energy would not have been resolved.

The universe originates, derives and evolves from this energy-mass dualism which is possible and probable due to the small size of the gravitons.

Since gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass and energy is mass in motion, gravity is the force exerted between mass formats.

All the matter of the universe is a progeny of the gravitons evolutions, of the natural selection of mass, of some of the mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion set in motion by the Big Bang.

B. Earth Life

Earth Life is just another mass format. A self-replicating mass format. Self-replication is its mode of evolution, natural selection. Its smallest base primal units are the RNAs genes.

Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection, self-replication.

C. Know Thyself. Life Is Simpler Than We Are Told, Including Origin-Nature Of Brain-Consciousness-“Spirituality”***

The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.

As Life is just another mass format, due to the oneness of the universe it is commonsensical that natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats and that life, self-replication, is its extension. And it is commonsensical, too, that evolutions, broken symmetry scenarios, are ubiquitous in all processes in all disciplines and that these evolutions are the “quantum mechanics” of the processes.

Human life is just one of many nature’s routes for the natural survival of RNAs, the base primal Earth organisms.

Life’s evolution, self-replication:

Genes (organisms) to genomes (organisms) to mono-cellular to multicellular organisms:

There are several prevailing theories dealing with the concept of space, time, matter and the universe. Is the universe timeless? Is the concept of time a human construct or is time rooted in the material world? The concept of something being timeless is that it has always existed, and it is the only one of its kind. Our universe is the only one of its kind that is and will always will be. All things have a beginning and an end. Does the space that exist have a beginning and an end, and is the elements that reside in space the same as the space that element reside in? If the universe is finite, but the space it travels through is infinite; are the two still equatable? If the number of universes is infinite; would that destroy the concept of a fourth dimension? We want to extend our universe beyond the confines of its physical limitations of mass, volume, weight, and area, to that of fantasy island and beyond. I do believe that the universe has exact dimensions of mass, weight, volume and area and can not fill a limitless [void]. If the universe is 13.5 billion years old, what was the universe at -100 million years old (before the big bang). What was the universe at -100 trillion years old. If the universe is truly timeless, then time is a bottomless pit with no beginning and with no end.

Quote: "It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

AD: This is what I´ve written about for some time. Everything moves eternally in a 3D cell like motion of assembling and dissolving gasses and particles in all levels of dynamic formation.

NB: This 3D cyclical knowledge can anyone really get from reading most of the mythical Creation Stories from all over the World.

Does the space that exist have a beginning and an end, and is the elements that reside in space the same as the space that element reside in? If the universe is finite, but the space it travels through is infinite; are the two still equatable? If the number of universes is infinite; would that destroy the concept of a fourth dimension?